Antisiphoning list

The only things I really want to see changed with the anti-siphoning list:

*1: Allow the FTA networks to show events on either a main channel or a multichannel. Of course, Foxtel probably wouldn’t want that to happen.

*2: Pay TV being allowed to show live coverage of any event listed on the anti-siphoning list, in addition to the FTA coverage. But of course, the FTA networks wouldn’t want that to happen because it would affect the currently massive ratings they get every year for events such as the AFL/NRL Grand Finals.

Personally, I have a rather split opinion about the anti-siphoning system for sports broadcasts generally. Of course I think that Australians shouldn’t be denied access to the most major of premium sporting events but at the same time, if Pay TV wants to provide alternative live coverage of a major sporting event of national significance (such as the football finals or the Melbourne Cup) why shouldn’t it be allowed to?

In conclusion…I think that the general public (rather than networks who think that they know what the public want) should be allowed have the final say on the anti siphoning laws but unfortunately I can’t see it being put to a public vote anytime soon.

The anti siphoning list is a joke.

1 Like

Business Insider reports the anti-siphoning list expires in April.

The federal government has confirmed the current broadcast anti-siphoning list will now remain in effect until April 2023 and (Communications Minister Paul) Fletcher is expected to review it as part of a broader media reform program.

While anti-siphoning rules should be ‘modernized’ to reflect the current media landscape (and perhaps updated as well), there’s still a need for them. You only have to look at how little sport is shown on FTA TV in the UK and NZ to see what impact not having an ‘effective’ anti-siphoning scheme has on how the vast majority of the public can access major events

2 Likes

While this is true, is it the business of the government to dictate how sports rights can be sold? I would argue no.

2 Likes

From Seven today

For want of a better thread for this article … I’ll paste here as it does mention the anti siphoning laws.

Alas I don’t see it happening but at least we would not be subjected to 7s coverage.

1 Like

Swimming and track and field which are popular Olympic sports should be available and accessible on free to TV

The swimming and athletics not on FTA has nothing to do with anti siphoning. It’s got to do with FTA not being interested

7 Likes

I think it’s telling the only time I can ever remember swimming being on FTA was in the early to mid-00s when our swim team was really good.

3 Likes

Swimming was one of the best-covered sports in this country (with coverage that a lot of sports would kill for) for at least a decade and it has faded away into almost obscurity to the point that no FTA network are particularly interested in picking them up

Listing it (and Athletics for that matter) on the list won’t magically get the sport back to FTA - they’ll simply pass over the rights.

2 Likes

The Australian:

ALP eyes review of broadcast anti-siphoning laws

The Labor government plans to enter the first stages of its promised review into Australia’s ­anti-siphoning laws before the October budget, insisting that the issue is among its “top ­priorities”.

The Australian has been told that the government is likely to start talks with media industry stakeholders, as well as the major sporting bodies themselves, about a possible review of the list in the next two months – which is sooner than first expected.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland told The Australian last week: “During the election, (Labor) committed to reviewing the anti-siphoning scheme and list, and to conducting consultative review processes as a priority. This review will commence soon and will allow the list to be remade before it sunsets in April next year.

“The review will give stakeholders and the public the opportunity to share their views on which events should be on the list, and how the scheme should work. This will include the impacts of the scheme on broadcasters, streaming services, sports bodies and, critically, Australian consumers.”

1 Like

The Paralympic Games and FIFA Women’s World Cup should be added to the list

2 Likes

“We are continually frustrated that the Foxtel’s traditional business is extraordinarily regulated,” Delany said.

“It’s regulated more than free-to-air [television] where the streamers are not regulated in any way. We always do the right thing. But at the same time, I think that the laws need to look at the public interest purpose, rather than just protecting free-to-air TV.”

Delaney never stops whinging.

What the hell do you expect him to say? He’s the CEO of a company that is considerably impacted by the list - of course he’s going to push for its reform or abolition, its Government sanctioned protectionism

The problems with the list doesn’t magically go away if Foxtel was to fold tomorrow - even with common ownership between FTA networks and streaming services this will remain an issue until the list (and the law that governs it) is modernised.

At a minimum the list needs to bind streaming services (and overseas companies) to a consistent ruleset

3 Likes

So I have been one of the stronger defenders of anti-siphoning legislation on here for a while (I just think of all the events I wouldn’t have seen as a kid without it), but surely now it needs a revisit more than ever. The way in which TV (if you can still call it that) has changed in the last 10 years in particular demands a rethink, not to mention how the list is abused/manipulated by FTA broadcasters.

That’s not to say I’d take Foxtel’s side, not in a million years. However I can acknowledge there are certainly some arguments for reform of this legislation that weren’t present, or at least quite as significant, when it was first introduced.