Free TVs latest campaign is just disingenuous shit - on one hand they rail against “paid for” sports coverage while their constituent members on the other build up their own paid for offerings in the background.
This isnt about a good deal for consumers, it’s about controlling who can and who can’t have sports rights in this country, especially if they want to charge for them. They’re designed to encourage people to support the FTA networks when realistically there interested in doing the same thing that’s been happening for years
From what I think, though, the new round of broadcasting rights (i.e. now until 2027) only allows them to broadcast up until 11:00pm, or when the second match in progress at the time finishes, whichever is first.
They are the same company. They can do what they like. They have decided to push people to pay for Stan which is fair enough I say. But just be open with it at the start of the tourney.
That being said, it’ll be interesting to see how Nine televises Wimbledon and the US Open later this year.
When Nine last had the US Open rights in the noughties, they would only do the day session (overnight AEST) and, IIRC, only the night session if an Australian was playing (e.g. Lleyton Hewitt). Often, they would take the world feed (or at least they did in 2009, because I know Todd Woodbridge was still employed by Seven at the time):
I have heard that only showing one match per night on FTA was not the plan and the unexpected change internally at Nine took some by shock. The suggestion was that there were contract issues that forced them to pull back coverage plans despite Stan and the FTA network being under the same ownership.
How would they not know what matches they could show on FTA based on what the contract says? Surely, they have people who can read what they are signing up to?
When Seven had the rights to Wimbledon, they had access to “the best two matches” of the day (or something among those lines), but apart from the odd marquee match on Centre Court could not show any other matches on that court due to what then-host Todd Woodbridge claimed as “contractual obligations” (in other words, it was exclusive to Foxtel).
For most of their coverage, though, they’d show Australians in action where possible.
There is no way it was contract issues…. They sometimes showed one match, sometimes two. And the first two nights they showed more. Was a way to try and get more Stan subscribers
You might note I said “suggesting that there was contract issues”, meaning that I wasn’t fully sure of that. Believe contracts as the cause if you wish. But what I do know is that what played out on FTA with the French Open wasn’t the plan and the network was forced to rollback their coverage compared to what was originally planned for one reason or another, that is a fact.
That may be the cause, but it doesn’t change what I said. It wasn’t the plan originally for FTA to have only 1-2 match per night, and some in the FTA division aren’t happy about it.
I think many here believe the FTA sport division and Stan Sport are all one team. They aren’t. They both have their own vested interests and different goals. There is obviously a bit of unrest between both teams as seen in recent media reporting over cost of Stan Sport commentators for the Olympics.
I’m just the messenger mate. I’m not the one pressing the big red button deciding what goes on free to and and what doesn’t. I’ll keep the information I’ve received from internal staff to myself going forward.
I always imagined if produced by wwos or a co-presentation including FTA coverage, that wwos (FTA broadcast) took charge. Wouldn’t Brent Williams (HoS) oversee the company’s sport including Stan from an executive perspective? Which makes this even stranger. I guess money talks and the company’s focus really is pushing Stan especially Stan Sport.
My understanding is two seperate production and management teams for WWOS and Stan. Yes at times there is a bit of overlap for shared events like Union but for the large part they are seperate.
