Are they living in the Stone Age or are the AFL about to bend the game over just so Fox can have some more of their precious ‘exclusivity’?
9 Likes
Can not see Seven agreeing to this at all. As to how people will be able to exit social media when watching a delayed telecast, not to mention, the bread and butter revenue from betting companies that help fund FTA rights to a large extent will be no longer present. Remember the report is coming from Nine Newspapers.
6 Likes
Good
12 Likes
The Australian is claiming “the AFL heavily favours the option of continuing its relationship with the incumbents, Foxtel and Seven” with the finer details to be thrashed out tomorrow and an announcement made before Friday’s semi-final.
4 Likes
So the Australian missed the fine print about the silent bidding part? 
1 Like
Either that or they know more given their owners are involved in bidding.
It’s all far too linked with all these leaks etc. Sports bodies should do blind bidding and the highest wins rather than these corrupt processes.
2 Likes
True, but sadly with the likes of the AFL partnering with certain sports betting companies, FTA has no option but to part fund their telecasts with these funds so as to afford these rights in the first place. As it stands today, one can not happen without the other given the large sums of money involved these days.
I agree.
Even if 10/Paramount and 9/Stan have a higher bid than 7/Foxtel, I have a feeling AFL will choose the latter.
2 Likes
Both The Age and The Australian’s reports are essentially saying the same thing - Seven/Fox are in the ‘driver’s seat’ to retain the rights but there’s still the possibility of Nine/Stan and/or Paramount throwing a spanner into the works if either/both decide to make a last-minute push.
Seems like Monday will be “put up or shut up” time for all the parties.
You keep claiming that sports broadcast rights tender processes that don’t involve a blind bidding process mean it’s corrupt yet you haven’t pointed to any examples which definitely prove that.
The massive rights deal the Big Ten Conference recently announced with Fox, CBS and NBC/Peacock followed months of rumours about which networks/platforms would bid for the rights and how the various packages would be structured:
If the difference is minor then perhaps. However, they wouldn’t be able to do that if the difference is significant.
2 Likes
Broadcast have improved for rugby, football and tennis on 9/Stan and 10/Paramount respectively
It’s the same coverage for the AFL except 7 gets Thursday night, Friday night and Sunday arvo.
1 Like
Sorry, cannot possibly say football has improved on 10/Paramount when you still catch up on live broadcast. Watch live or wait for broadcast to end to watch from start.
7 Likes
Whilst the money stumped up by the networks is a major factor, it’s just not right to say the highest bidder should win. There are plenty of other valid considerations for the AFL to take into account like reach and exposure that could make a lesser financial bid more attractive.
4 Likes
I’m backing Sports Flick to get the rights in a blind auction.
19 Likes
Interesting conclusion from the article that one of the hurdles to an agreement is a dip in ratings for AFL.
The five capital city average audience for all AFL matches in the home-and-away season shows that the average ratings have fallen by close to 20 per cent from last year and about a quarter from the peaks of the pandemic lockdown in 2020.
Perhaps more concerning is that the average audience has fallen below the pre-pandemic levels set in 2019.
Despite the simplistic picture it presents, the five-city average for this year’s home-and-away series totalled 435,185 viewers. That is down from 508,030 last year and the peak of 544,099 in 2020. It is also below the 506,540 viewer average in 2019.
Seems to be missing a few key points while admitting it is a “simplistic” approach.
The main factor not addressed is the viewing numbers for the biggest partner in the deal which is Foxtel. What are the average viewing numbers for STV and how many of any lost FTA viewing has gone to STV and Kayo? It seems to be acknowledged that a significant take-up of Kayo is a big reason for the fall in FTA numbers seen this year. This would negate any impact on the value of the deal and , if anything, potentially push it up, as it could be seen as easier to monetise Kayo viewership.
Also factors to consider are national figures rather than just 5 cities as well as key demo numbers and commercial share of viewing.
3 Likes
TV Blackbox understands key changes under the new deal will see all Saturday afternoon and night football during the home and away season become exclusive to the Foxtel and Kayo platforms in what is being described as a “Super Saturday” block of programming.
Foxtel, who pay the bulk of the rights fees for the sporting code is also expected to close a loophole that currently allows Channel 7 to live broadcast Foxtel produced coverage of interstate teams into their local markets.
Under the new deal it’s expected this ‘local team’ coverage for interstate teams will be broadcast on a two-hour delay on 7mate allowing Foxtel/Kayo to maximise its live broadcast rights.
Channel 7 is believed to have secured permission to stream its coverage of Thursday night, Friday night and one Sunday afternoon game on the network’s own streaming platform 7Plus .
Foxtel/Kayo will look to distinguish its subscription streaming coverage by providing its own commentary line-up for all nine games of each round.
1 Like
Wow that sounds like an absolute horseshit of a deal if it is in fact true.
13 Likes
The AFL would be crazy to go with a deal like that, no matter if it means more money, it would surely be a worse result for fans and potential fans.
16 Likes
That matches up with the Nine Newspapers’ reporting about the delay period for NSW & QLD home games (though I maintain that doesn’t sound right) but conflicts with their claim that there won’t be any change for SA and WA viewers.
As such, either one outlet will be proven right or both will be massively off the mark.
4 Likes
This is what I don’t get either - wheres the benefit for anyone?
Fox and Kayo are only going to get at best a minimal uptake in subscriptions in NSW and QLD due to this.
The AFL lose penetration in those markets. As i said a while ago, every local team’s matches live and free is a big advantage over RL up here.
As much as I disagree with other suggestions made by Fox like their Super Saturday idea, they make sense for them to pursue. This one I just don’t get.
14 Likes