I will suggest it’s going to be very hard to get a 4 billion expense on the books while they are shelling out for WBD.
Maybe - but that is the subscription price as of May 2026 and not March 2028 when the deal is live and the owners are going to have to recoup.
That number seems so incredibly high but I’ll take it at face value.
Could parties come to some sort of special agreement, like reduced subscription prices for NRL or for Prime Video full access to everything (shows and movies or even the add-ons subs) for no extra charge if paying for NRL?
I doubt it - don’t forget there’s still plenty paying Foxtel an average of $90/month to watch the NRL.
Careful what you wish for. It’s currently more expensive to access Stan Sport compared to Kayo Basic.
That number is for the whole prime service. Which includes Amazon shopping, prime video, prime music (if anyone uses that just for music) and other Amazon and third party services. But no doubt Amazon will use that to inflate their numbers to work in their favour
Prime Video on its own is underwhelming.
Its interesting, someone in the States pointed out over the weekend that Amazon Prime have more American subscribers than subscribers to FS1 in response to complaints about the NASCAR Cup Series starting on the platform.
Maybe they are a platform that could get away with a single night’s worth of rights
Prime’s numbers are inflated because you get access to the video platform as part of their wider Prime offering - would be interesting to see how many subscribers are actually using Prime Video
Maybe ten/paramount are just sitting back waiting for all the leaks from other bidders before making a bid.
Yet the viewership, even if it’s a younger base, shrunk. So that isn’t necessarily a good thing.
I’m not suggesting it is - there is a lot to be said for the lack of visibility - but Amazon are in a unique position where they have a potential audience base that they could harness with these bids.
Not too much more but there’s this:
It’s expected that the NRL broadcast deal will be finalised by mid-July, with Peter V’landys, chairman of the Australian Rugby League Commission, hoping to secure a deal worth more than $4bn over five years, commencing in 2028.
Seven and 10 declined to comment. Foxtel also declined to comment.
Yeah, Peter V’Landys said last week or whenever Abdo quit they wanted it done by the time he left.
20 teams by 2029: Peter V’landys sets sights on audacious NRL expansion target
ARL Commission boss Peter V’landys says the NRL could expand to 20 teams by 2029 as he closes in on a record TV rights deal that will “future-proof the game for 50 years”.
In a wide-ranging interview with this masthead, V’landys revealed one broadcaster is pushing for a 20-team competition within three years to beef-up the richest broadcast deal in rugby league’s 118-year history.
“They want it in the next (broadcast) cycle. I’m not going to say who, but that will certainly be considered.
The 20th licence shapes as a battle between New Zealand and a fifth NRL team in Queensland.
V’landys revealed broadcast talks have been “excellent” with Channel 7 and Amazon understood to have tabled bids, as well as existing rights holders Channel 9 and Fox.
Also mentioned
Deal may not be finished by July, but close to it.
Mindulf of importance of the Pay TV arm (Foxtel)
Not just about money.
If we see something a Little similar to the 2002-2006 AFL TV Rights with Seven gaining Saturday NRL Rights (Shared with Fox) as well as the Mens Finals Series along with exclusive GF Rights and Nine retaining NRLW, Mens Thursday, Friday and Sunday Rights (Shared with Fox) as well as exclusive Mens and Womens SOO Rights, I wonder if there is a way for Nine to fill up it’s Saturday Afternoon schedule with NSW, ACT and QLD (Except for the Magic Millions Carnival) Racing Rights.
Interesting to make the “illegal” nature of the deal such a big part of the article when the cricket deal is structured similarly
I notice the article doesnt directly call it out for being “illegal” too - but rather suggests it might be against the spirit of the rules.
Except the section of the legislation suggests that there may not be an issue, if Foxtel (or any other non-FTA broadcaster) has a FTA partner
I don’t think there’s any issue if it’s available for pay and for free.
it’s a non issue so long as games end up on fta, which they will.
Not when the purpose of the article is clearly to raise doubts about Foxtel’s bid to paint Nine’s bid in a more favourable light.