I find his insistence that it must be breaking the law completely and utterly baffling, for someone who has worked in the media or media-adjacent for so long.
It’s not worth the bandwidth it used on my end to read it.
Is the NRL’s $5.3b TV Rights Deal Illegal?
No.
There, saved you a read.
Actually it’s even funnier than that.
Lawyer gives his opinion (that it’s legal, because the List broadly acts like a first right of refusal for the FTA networks). Rob then asserts:
Having poured over the Anti-Siphoning list and the Broadcasting Act, I cannot pinpoint anything that backs up that assertion.
Quality.
It’s also that the anti-siphoning rules aren’t self executing, a FTA broadcaster would have to actively make the complaint that they did not have the opportunity to acquire rights from the list, or the minister would have to deem that they did not and deny the otherwise automatic removal of the event from the list.
The fact Nine got such a great deal shows the control that the anti-siphoning process gives FTA on the outcomes.
Something i would like to see is give us an audio option to watch the games with just stadium audio and refs mics with no commentary.
If SuperSport in South Africa can offer audio in multiple languages i can’t see why Fox can’t give multiple audio options.
Fox used to do this as a red button feature.
Foxtel/DAZN is the only company with the resources to secure the rights of the NRL, AFL and to a lesser extent cricket.
1.422 million customers are subscribed to the traditional broadcast model. The average customer is paying $89 per month, generating $1,518,696,000 per annum.
1.511 million are subscribed to Kayo. The average customer spends $32 per month, generating $580,224,000 per annum.
$2,098,920,000 is the annual revenue generated by these customers.
From 2028, $1.16 billion per year will be spent on NRL ($520M), AFL ($500M) and Cricket Australia ($140M) each year.
If it wasn’t for the anti-siphoning list then these sports would not be broadcast on FTA.
After readig the article, I’m now interested in his interpretation of what “or a part of the event” means then - because if FTA only acquire part of the event, his logic suggests no one can have the rest.
His take on the Anti-Hoarding provisions is irrelevant because it doesn’t apply to a subscription provider - it exists to stop FTA from acquiring the rights and not doing anything with them in order to exclude Foxtel. It was introduced after there was a raft of sports that ended up being hoarded.
Claiming ACMA are playing it “safe” in their response is almost laughable too.
We’ve had these rules for the best part of 30 years now and they’ve largely not changed in implementation (the list itself has though) - you’d think if there was some legitimacy to this position, it would have been litigated by now.
But you know whats crazy about this position? It would mean that Nine would fall foul of it too if they picked the full rights up too with Stan. There’s no carveout (quite rightly) to give a FTA-owned subscription platform a free pass.
The VFL/AFL or NSWRL/ARL/NRL seasons have never been broadcast in full (every single game televised) on FTA. Is this McKnight guy genuinely stupid or is this some sort of devil’s advocate position?
NRL clubs set for record $500 million windfall from new TV rights deal
This masthead can reveal the ARLC’s $5.3 billion broadcast deal will deliver unprecedented rivers of gold not only for players, but for the NRL’s 19 clubs – plus the code’s proposed 20th franchise for 2029-30.
A bloc of NRL executives are in negotiations with V’landys on the most lucrative funding deal ever for clubs, who will receive annual grants ranging from $22m to $25 million.
The beefed-up grants will be tied to an incremental rise in the salary cap, which is currently $12 million, but is forecast to reach $15.5m for 2028 – the first year of the new broadcast cycle.
This is a very interesting interview.
Topics covered include:
- Why DAZN couldn’t afford to lose the NRL
- How broadcasters recover the cost of billion-dollar media rights
- Whether Kayo Sports and Foxtel subscribers should expect higher prices - Spoiler: The answer is yes.
- What DAZN’s experience in France could mean for Australia
- Can the NRL become a genuine global sports property?
- What Formula One’s growth can teach rugby league
- Why the AFL’s next media rights negotiation just became more expensive
- What this deal means for the NBL, Super Netball, rugby union, Supercars, the A-Leagues and the wider Australian sports market - Spoiler: it’s not great news for the other sports.
* Disclaimer: I’m not in any way affiliated with the content creator. I just found the video insightful and thought it might interest others in this thread.
Its not been good for the lower-tier sports in Australia for some time now - Foxtel has shifted its focus onto a few key local sports (AFL, NRL, Cricket and, to a lesser extent, Supercars) and the remainder have had to fight for scraps or go to the likes of Stan or P+
The NBL doesn’t do too badly, but ESPN exposure helps that (and if you did the numbers, ESPN would likely be the second biggest subscription-based sports channel/provider in Australia)
It will be interesting to see what happens with Super Netball now they’ve got some FTA exposure back as part of their Nine/Stan deal.
The interviewee in the video (Murray Barnett) said that he would even be worried for Cricket Australia when the time comes for them to begin negotiations on their next broadcast rights agreement.
The full implications will not be felt immediately for a deal whose devil is in the detail. But before long, fans will come to realise their team is on free-to-air television less and less frequently. And they will look back to this moment, when the Albanese government – despite having the power to resist the pull of the paywall – stood and watched.
The boiling of the frog is, rather than a recipe, a metaphor for incremental changes that go unnoticed. Like a creature in a pot that is heating slowly, at some point the temperature becomes too much.
Four of eight NRL games next week will be on free-to-air TV – half the entire round – showcasing the Bulldogs, Rabbitohs and Cowboys jostling for places in the top eight as the season counts down. This arrangement is part of the current broadcast deal signed in 2015 and extended in 2021.
When the 20th NRL team joins to make 10-match rounds as soon as 2029, however, those without pay TV will enjoy live access to just three. From 50% to 30% in the blink of an eye: more than a trim, it’s a broadcasting buzzcut.
The article does point out the 4 games (up from 3) is only the last month of the regular season, but sounds like this is out altogether in the new deal - so just 3 games on Nine for the whole of the regular season?
Of course, many impatient or discerning sports fans already prefer the coverage offered by subscription providers and are happy to pay for the privilege. For them, any increase in the share of their favourite sport that is behind a paywall is moot. Others, however, worry about the frog.
Also mentions a cut in the number of free to air NRLW games.