This is such a shit argument - Cricket is one of a few sports that will attract viewers (at least for the coverage) regardless of how well or otherwise the network performs. Comparing to a code that has traditionally performed poorly on FTA and a 3-day event that people seem to be less and less interested in on a yearly basis is disingenuous and suggests that there is an expectation that Paramount will lob in a highly competitive number that may be difficult for the remaining competitors to match.
The “one company” thing is interesting, depending on who the rights contract is with, they’re not really in a legal sense, but rather they have the same owner (well for 9/Stan that would be the case, Paramount and 10 might be a little more complicated). There would be ways to deal with it (eg single rights holder and the digital is sub-licensed, two rights holders)
Covid hasn’t helped either - rather than trying to innovate the coverage, they moved to effectively survival mode to ensure they can maintain a reasonably constant level of coverage. Hopefully, we see a bit of a return to improving the coverage now the covid restrictions are unlikely to be a significant restraint on the broadcast.
They can allow billboard sponsorship from the stands… as we saw previously with Tennis and VFL etc but nothing else. It wouldn’t work. It’s also not in the ABC charter to broadcast or spend money this way.
Paramount won the broadcast rights to the IPL in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the UK in addition to digital rights in India for 2023-27. I don’t expect them to show any of it on FTA though.
10/P is the ideal option and the way forward for cricket in Australia. BBL remains on FTA and the return of white-ball cricket on either 10 or 10 Bold with the flexibility to move around.
There’s no news on that so far. The new deal kicks in from 2023, strikes me a bit odd if Paramount actively bid for the rights in Australia to only sublease it to Fox. The IPL had split the overseas contract by different geographical regions, so different bidders could choose to allocate resources by region. Viacom/Paramount apparently were not interested in the US or MENA rights, but won the rights in the other regions. In comparison, the last round of rights was an all-inclusive deal for Star which covered digital and linear rights worldwide.
True, but I guess their strategy will be dependent on the outcome of the Australian cricket rights. If Paramount win the rights to broadcast Australian cricket, it would make sense for them to accumulate a package of international cricket rights to retain cricket-based subscriptions to P+.
Appreciate the clarification - that’s actually what I thought I’d heard/read at the time, that Paramount had won local rights; but the info from the BCCI’s mouth on rights outside India are predictably non-existent on their site.
I suppose they can theoretically sublease those rights in the overseas markets: NZ for sure as there is no real visibility for the launch of P+, and it’s probable in South Africa and UK too as it makes more sense to partner with Sky and Supersport than have a standalone sports strategy. Australia is the intriguing one given the domestic rights situation.
rather see cricket on free to air then on behind paywall. I will drop kayo/foxtel (my father has Foxtel, I have kayo) if all cricket rights go to free to air.
I’ve been thinking similar but more SBS, maybe with Foxtel selling the ads and taking the revenue (I see this as similar to the deal Rogers has with the CBC, who show ads, for NHL rights in Canada).
But I feel this would be last resort, only if 7, 9 and 10 see near zero value in simulcasting with Foxtel (or Cricket Australia doesn’t deal with one of them because of legal action and the other 2 see near zero value)